Yes, but it's not vital. Eye candy isn't why most people move to an area, it's a nice plus, something far down on the list of pros, but it's not a big factor.

I'm not sure that's completely true. Of course I equate mountains, oceans, lakes, trees as eye candy, and that's where we are have trouble competing. Look at where many of the major cities are located, and you'll find natural beauty is a big part of the initial attraction. (Dallas is a complete mystery to me). That's why I said we need to create our own, and a beautiful urban park would not hurt.

But, I do think there are many other factors in why people move to an arena, and agree it's not the most important.

Sorry for the late posting but if anyone reads it in time, Flashpoint is usually rerun @ 2 am Mondays (right before the rerun of that weeks Meet the Press) but check local listings to be sure. I usually miss it the 1st time around myself.

Yeah, look where the major cities are. The cities weren't established because the area was beautiful, they were established because the resources were there. Denver wasn't established because the mountains are pretty, it was a mining town. Baltimore was located there because it was a good location for a port. San Francisco was built on the gold rush. Seattle by lumber. Resources had everything to do with it, not beauty of the scenery.

And that's what people look at when they determine whether to move to an area. They look at schools, safety, weather, the economy, ease of housing, etc. No where I have ever been has a local spent much time addressing the natural beauty of their city unless they were showing around a tourist. It's far down their list of concerns. Now, that doesn't make it a bad thing, but it's not an important part of the decision.

Having lived in a few of those "eye candy" cities, and knowing people who also live there, I can tell you that it's more important than you think. Yes, those cities were established because of natural resources, but now, when natural resources are less important (current attitudes are what I was referring to when I said "initial attraction") how a city looks is still part of the decision. And, it's easier to look nice when you've got natural beauty to begin with.

Regardless of why, I can tell you that it's harder to get people to move to Oklahoma City than it is to Denver, Seattle, San Francisco. Maybe that's the schools. I don't think it's the weather or housing. We have to compete in any way we can. We cannot create natural beauty in the form of mountains, oceans, etc. But we can try and make our city as aesthetically pleasing as possible, and parks, street and landscaping are one of the ways we can do so. Again, it can't hurt.

It's part, but it's not a vital thing. I've been to places with great natural beauty and the locals didn't care. They were focused on other things. And it can hurt if you focus on it instead of other areas that are more important to them. I can tell you right now that no family would move to this city for the central park if there was high crime and the schools all sucked. Not many people move based solely on initial attraction, they take a lot of other things into account.

Now, it's still the same, but our definition of resources has changed. Resources now are good schools, low crime areas, stable economies, low costs of living, etc. A pretty convention center (assuming this one would be designed well) isn't a resource, it's a possible, potential, maybe added perk. The park is the same way. It's not going to be a negative by any stretch, and it's good for a city to think about these things, but is it the best way to spend the money? Is it what we'll get the most out of?

certainly you can make your point without attacking other users... -M

That's something I doubt someone like him realizes. No one knows him from Adam. He's anonymous, thus "because I said so" holds no weight whatsoever, and never will. He could be a fast food worker who doesn't want to pay a tax and pretends to be an officer because people would listen to him more. He could be someone pissed off about the railyard not being included who tries to find some way to dig up support against it. All we know for sure about him is that he's a troll who insults anyone who disagrees, then doesn't like it when people don't take his word as gospel.

So yeah, thanks for posting sources instead of stamping your feet and saying "I said so!" like its some kind of excuse.

Iron, what do you think a study is other than analysis of second-hand, third-hand, etc. information?

If you're going to question Mr. Loudenback's integrity, even among folks who support your cause, you're going to find yourself to be a lonely, lonely man in that pursuit. I'd advise reading through his blog before you so cavalierly cast aspersions in his direction. I think you'd change your tune.

-- or you can continue to flush your credibility down the toilet... either way's cool with me.

Well put Betts. Even though OKC is not blessed with oceans, mountains, beaches etc... it can still make up with ammenities and cleanliness. Core to Shore addresses part of the issue of aesthetics with all that embarrasing blight South of I-40. It is important how outsiders perceive the city. Why are so many residents against a beautiful park and a covention center that may take OKC to a new level with conventions and $$ pouring into the city. There is a saying, to make money you have to spend money. There are "some" residents that do not wish to advance or progress no matter what. I am hoping for the sake of OKC future that the MAPS 3 will pass as the momentum must continue or I believe it will cause stagnation and apathy for residents.

Well said, Midtowner!

After having just lived in Denver for several years I can wholeheartedly, 100% DISagree with you on this. You won't find many people at all who don't absolutely love living in Denver for the views of the mountains, proximity to skiing and recreation and the overall weather. Other than Denver and Aurora public schools, the schools in the region are generally pretty good. Of course, people are there due to the high tech and aerospace work but you will be hardpressed to find anyone who doesn't find it important to live there because of the mountains.

Interesting. I respond to the comments above which were directed at me and responded in kind.
I didn't question his integrity, quite the contrary. He's questioned mine. I won't sit idly by as one cut's and paste's one's comments in an attempt to divert attention from the true message of a speech or one's stance on a particular subject. I can only repeat, cutting and pasting from someone else's research or news story and commenting on them as a matter of fact is dangerous. That doesn't make one credible. I'd be careful about commenting on news stories as a matter of fact and discounting getting the information "from the horses mouth" so to speak.

The Berkshire study was an analysis given by using FACTUAL numbers. It wasn't taken from one or the others opinion. If that was the case, I assure you the study's conclusion would have been quite different. Their are many different types of analysis that can be done. Once again, Midtowner opens mouth inserts foot.

Dangerous in what sense? As long as nothing is being taken out of context, being taken with permission or in compliance with fair use, then what is dangerous? It's simply news and commentary -- something a lot of blogs feature.

As far as Doug's own research goes, he does plenty of it... and what is news gathering but a retelling of stories told to you by and through other sources?

Well, you don't know that at all since the study's methodology section is small and devoid of any actual methodology other than a laundry list of methods which were used, including interviews with supervisory officials -- apparently qualitative analysis which, yes, would mean that the study likely did exactly what I say it did.

I can't comment on how accurate the study was since it's impossible to evaluate due to the dearth of information regarding the methodology.

I don't know about that. It's certainly not tops for everyone, but, given a choice, most would pick a beautiful place to live and those that do seem perfectly willing to pay a steep premium for it.

This is just a note to say that Andy157 and I had a really really fine meeting this morning at the IHOP in Bricktown -- we were joined part of the time by a mystery guest -- and Andy157 gave me a good bit of education (not sure that it's all sunken in yet) about the history that relates to issues that developed after the 1989 3/4 cent sales tax was approved by the citizens ... he gave me a good education about many things, too many for me to enumerate here ... I wasn't taking notes ... some of which has to do with the city's budgeting methods, some of which relates to litigation in District Court which related at least in part to whether the city was appropriately allocating the 3/4 cent tax ... the case is here: OCIS Case Summary for CJ-1992-3864- THE CITY OKLAHOMA CITY VS STONE CHARLES L ET AL (Oklahoma County District Courts) ... which resulted in a negotiated agreed Journal Entry of Judgment filed on January 12, 1993. The actual document isn't on-line at OSCN (the agreed judgment was filed in 1993, well before such documents came to be available on-line). OSCN's docket sheet entry merely reads ...

... and, of course, that note tells nothing of the content of the agreed judgment which is a matter of record. Andy157 kindly gave me a copy of the lengthy document (55 pages including attachments, if I counted correctly) and I've not had time to read it yet. Some of the related history relates to blatant misdirecting of funds by the city both before and even after that agreed judgment was entered into.

It is not my place to identify who Andy157 is -- that is a matter for him to decide -- but I will certainly say that he is quite a gentleman and that he certainly has been in a position to give excellent 1st hand historical information which has, step by step, led to where things are today from the firefighters point of view, and, to some extent, the FOP's even though he did not assume to speak for its point of view. Andy157's lineage is the red-truck type, the guys who never give you tickets when your car is parked in front of your house and the car tag is 2 months out of date (I mention that because I got 2 such tickets on back-to-back days last week). I didn't think to mention this to him (but do now if he is reading) but his group is the type that saved my wife's life several years back when she slumped on the stairs and could not breathe but whose emergency service arrived well before AMCare's people did -- because of their quick and skilled action my wife is not only alive but is supporting me today! I'm a bum. I love those guys! I have no doubt whatever about the truthfulness of his remarks or that what he had to say was fact-based. I left the meeting with no doubt that the city did not always live up to either the spirit or the letter of the 1989 3/4 cent sales tax ballot and may not being so today. (I like the cops, too, even if the out-of-date tickets on my parked car were a bit annoying. For many years, I officed with a fine man-in-blue who got his law degree while serving as a policeman, one of the finest guys that I know).

It is/was one of the most informative 1 1/2 hours that I have spent in quite a long time, and I thank him for initiating our get-together and for spending the time with me. He wasn't trying to persuade; neither was I. For me, it was just an education in history, a detailed part of it that few would probably know first hand. And I got to eat a short stack of yummy pancakes ... I haven't had any for quite a time, and the coffee was good, too.

As a sidebar note, he arrived before I did ... he made a grand entrance driving a huge red firetruck ... I'm just kidding. Some nearby firefighters were coincidentally at IHOP at the same time and their rig was parked in the median in the street immediately west of IHOP.

I'm still not getting the connection between MAPS 3 and the existing staffing and/or other issues between the unions and the city ... in my view, both the city (re MAPS 3) and the unions (particularly the firefighters re the 1989 sales tax and matters which transpired after that time) have clearly legitimate issues to advance, and that has been my position pretty much if not altogether from the beginning. I still do not see that each "side's" issues are necessarily in conflict with the other's. Maybe if we talked longer, I'd see the connection, who can say.

Regardless, there are people of good will on both sides of every one of the issues involved and it's a sad day for Oklahoma City that cool and calm heads and personalities cannot find it possible to have a seat at Oklahoma City's table and figure out reasonable and long term solutions, all the way around. I'm talking about the mayor and city manager. I'm talking about the union leaders. I'm talking about the citizens who are tracking this election and the union issues. I'm talking about the chamber and business interests. No one is 100% in the right and no one is 100% in the wrong. But, with the blazing dueling pistols, if not oozies, maybe later even some shoulder-held small nuclear devices, which are being fired and/or anticipated as we speak, that seems more unlikely to occur as each day goes by.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

thats exactly what i'm talking about!

We could go into a long exchange of messages over the study. I doubt anything would be resolved. Your claim you need to quantify the study as if you have some sort of expertise in this field is incongruous. To say the least. You have zero qualifications to do so. I'd hope you were astute enough to read the study and come up with your own conclusion. I think you called it "Junk" science. So let's move on.

I understand. You have no personal information or experience to add to the shortage of Manpower information. You dismiss any personal accounts of the Manpower shortage. You dismiss information or interview given from Union Reps. You dismiss any "Junk" science study given by an independent company. Got it. There is no way to change your perspective or even shed some light on any other one besides. There is no shortage of Manpower. So lets move on.

Thank you to both of you. Now I hope, Doug, you have a little better perspective. Not vote changing, but one that see's the other side.
'm still not getting the connection between MAPS 3 and the existing staffing and/or other issues between the unions and the city
The only connection is simply. City services are already stretched very very thin...a yes vote and ANY new development before addressing the Manpower issues will further stretch personnel. That's it. Address keeping it safe and protecting it through Police, Fire and City Services and then BUILD, GROW...at will
Agreed (fingers crossed), but not holding my breath.

So then you're accusing Mr. Loudenback of libel? Inventing sources? Taking things out of context? Which is it? Be specific.

That's where you'd be wrong. I'm more than qualified to evaluate a study's methodology. Nine-years of post-secondary education, not to mention a bachelor's and a J.D. say as much.

I'm sure you've probably heard lawyers arguing over whether such and such can pass "Daubert," well, evaluating scientific methods or the substance of expert's testimony is something we (I) do often. Clients don't mind paying for me to do it for them, so even though I'm not charging you to tell you these things about your study doesn't make me any less knowledgeable about what I'm talking about.

Absolutely. This is what you call "anecdotal" information, i.e., personal experience isn't the best evidence to prove a common trend.

I never said that. I just said that the methodology section was insufficient to know either way whether the study was valuable to anyone.

Iron, before I met with Andy157, I already thought (and have said here several times should you not have noticed) that the unions have legitimate issues which need to be addressed, so that is not an epiphany which occurred to me the 1st time today. Andy157 certainly put some meat on the bones of the unions', particularly the firefighter's, point of view, and it was a total pleasure of mine to meet with him today. But, even though I fully expect to vote Yes on MAPS 3, I've not been particularly shy in my criticisms or questions of various matters involved with voting Yes on the MAPS 3 vote. It is not black; it is not white; and in those in-between shades of gray people will have to make their own calls about the relative priorities of what will turn their individual votes one way or another.

__________________
Doug
http://www.dougloudenback.com/downtownOKC.htm
http://www.dougloudenback.com/oklahomacity.htm
http://dougdawg.blogspot.com/

For what its worth, regarding the City's staffing issues, according to the City's own 2008 budget report (available at OKC.gov):

“Although the number of City staff has increased in the past few years, we are still operating BELOW 1994 staffing levels.”

Obviously this is talking about all city employees, but a cursory examination of the various budget reports (again available at OKC.gov) supports what they have been saying about staffing issues. Fortunately, one doesn't have to weed through the several hundred pages of each report, as Fire & Police have their own sections.

Help me out and maybe I'm just dumb but when you say any development do you mean we should we stop all development including private development so we can wait on more manpower or is this just directed towards maps? I still dont get the connection between defeating maps 3 based on personal issue due to the simple fact that it takes time(maybe 3-5 years)before any of the maps 3 projects are built. And then an increase in population will probably not occur till years later. I'm not against cops or fireman but defeating maps 3 is not going to get you more personal. While it may be true we need more cops now the city is not going to hire a zealous amount of cops and firman before the city grows its the chicken or the eggs anology.

I would just like to point out that the staffing levels were allowed to drop to these levels during a time of economic upswing. They also had the added money from Bricktown coming in. Why were these problems consistently ignored in ALL of the cities departments when they should have had the money to address them?

Doug, I agree. We want people to understand some other NEEDS the city does have and that aren't getting addressed. That's it. Informed voters.
Exactly!...Hence throws out the Mayor's argument about how He is assuring everyone that Manpower issues will get addressed. He'll do it with all of the money this MAPS will bring in. The Mayor and Manager project greater tax revenue than we received when the economy was thriving with this MAPS. What a joke! I guess every other economist see's the economy turning around at a very slow rate. These two have some kind of crystal ball that tells them we're going to get several million dollars more a year with this MAPS than the last two plans....Arizona Ocean Front Property anyone?

I can't deny. The more I find out about this MAPS3 the more I'd vote against it despite Public Safety issues. Vague ballot language. Overestimated tax revenue. Political and Private Interest conflicts. I'd send them back to the drawing board on this one.

What does police and fire staffing have to do with MAPS?

As an outsider it seems someone is putting their issue where it doesn't belong.

__________________
Oklahoma City - The surprise your family has been looking for.